|
|
Post by savvypaul on Jul 28, 2018 7:05:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jul 28, 2018 7:19:28 GMT
The BBC is independent? Not sure I agree with that Paul, IMO they've been a Tory mouthpiece for sometime now. The way they have supported the Tories in being critical of public services, with a bias of support for budget cuts is shameful. They used to be a lot more independent. However, I do agree it's one of our finest institutions, unfortunately though, corporate fatcats have too much influence now, which has eroded that independence. The business model needs to change to compete with online services too, it's not sustainable in it's current form. I think if it had less money it would actually be better, getting rid of low level corruption, or certainly putting it under closer scrutiny.
If it actually had a business model where you paid for what you used, I would support it, but I won't pay £150 a year to watch a handful of programmes on the iPlayer.
There are some very tough times ahead for the corporation, but it's an opportunity to improve and reinvigorate it's core values, which sadly I feel it has currently lost.
I wouldn't ever wish to see it go, it just needs to be more accountable.
|
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Jul 28, 2018 8:12:49 GMT
...and the Tories say that the BBC is full of liberals and marxists.
I reckon the BBC has done pretty well with it's online news coverage. It's TV News offering has fallen behind others, though, imo.
We have to think about what we realistically want from the BBC. Sadly, it is politicians who will decide...
|
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 28, 2018 8:33:30 GMT
The BBC is independent? Not sure I agree with that Paul, IMO they've been a Tory mouthpiece for sometime now. ...and before that they were a Labour mouthpiece. Remember the time that no news item was complete without a quote from Ed Milliband about it? The point isn't which party they favour right now, it's that they don't even seem to have a concept of neutrality and balance. |
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Jul 28, 2018 8:58:28 GMT
They have more concept of it than most...but I'm biased  |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 28, 2018 10:48:37 GMT
Why is that, Paul?
I loved the BBC as an organisation when they had true engineering expertise. Not everyone likes BBC speakers but you have to admire their efforts to make neutral monitors, consistent across the model range. I treasure my visit to the BBC during my engineering degree.
Of course, just like its readers cause the Daily Mail to exist, the BBC tries to meet the demands of its low expectation audience. If only they would uphold the older values of educating as well as entertaining.
|
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Jul 28, 2018 11:30:33 GMT
I was, a little obliquely, recognising the difficulties in trying to determine the presence of bias, or lack of, within the BBC; we all have our own prejudices and our own versions of the truth.
I instinctively feel protective towards the BBC (though not their loudspeakers, lol).
Do we get what we deserve...or what we will put up with?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jul 28, 2018 11:31:14 GMT
Of course, just like its readers cause the Daily Mail to exist, the BBC tries to meet the demands of its low expectation audience. If only they would uphold the older values of educating as well as entertaining. Totally agree with this, and also what Paul said earlier about it's online news as opposed to it's TV News.
I personally feel they actually get too much money now, which has watered down the content as they have become more of a business selling to a global market. I also feel at the last Charter Agreement they should have revised how they operate and missed a trick. It could bite them in the arse just carrying on as they are until 2027. For sure the landscape will be hugely different by then, it already is and I foresee big changes.
Somebody definitely needs to be held accountable for how they hounded Cliff, if only to try and restore public confidence. Appealing is a bad move and likely to piss people off even more, as for sure they'll lose. It's the older populace who mostly still pay the licence fee and they are going to be on Cliff's side, as he's a national icon for that generation.
I think if they were leaner and meaner, concentrating more on their core audience (who actually pay for them), they could go back to their old values. Being the pack leader on a different path, rather than competing with all the other dross, in the same pack and treading the same path of mediocrity. How often does Nordic Noir get praised here and elsewhere, but for some reason we keep churning out the same old shite. That I don't understand, it can't be a lack of talent?
Anyhoots, I best shut-up as I don't pay them anything
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jul 28, 2018 11:32:13 GMT
I do like BBC loudspeakers as well  |
|
|
|
Post by Stratmangler on Jul 28, 2018 11:33:14 GMT
The BBC can, and do produce some amazing and educational work. The Blue Planet was a shining example of what they're capable of, and The Blue Planet II continued the tradition, with technological developments aiding the camera crews to capture images that are mindblowing.
Having photographers and cameramen accompanying Police Officer undertaking a raid because of allegations is not acceptable. They're supposed to report the news, not be part of "evidence" searches. The fact that it was then broadcast to the world is criminal activity in itself, prejudicing the outcome of any potential criminal prosecution.
In the light of the BBC, and the rest of the establishment overlooking the activities of that disgusting bastard Saville, there has been a ridiculous and overzealous compensation the other way. The vilification of Cliff with the assistance of the BBC should never have happened.
The Police are not innocent in all of this either, and heads should be rolling at the Met too. It's not the first time they've very publicly pursued someone.
|
|
|
|
Post by savvypaul on Jul 28, 2018 11:46:35 GMT
I do like BBC loudspeakers as well I rest my case that we all have our own versions of the truth...  |
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Jul 28, 2018 11:48:33 GMT
As you probably realise by now, my politics are slightly *cough* left of centre so I'm obviously biased too. In my opinion though one of the major problems with the BBC News service has been the elevation of Laura Kuenssberg to Political Editor. She has what appears to be an obvious right-wing agenda, to the point of breaking accuracy and impartiality rules in a News-at-Six report about Jeremy Corbyn's view on shoot-to-kill, that she has become untrustworthy in the eyes of many. I feel that the BBC News service as a whole has become tainted by association. The BBC then assigned Kuenssberg a bodyguard while she was covering the Labour party conference, and made sure that everyone knew.
“I would die in a ditch for the impartiality of the BBC,” she said in an interview last year. I find it hard to believe her, even though she may well believe her own statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jul 28, 2018 11:52:54 GMT
I find it hard to believe her, even though she may well believe her own statement. I'll go further than that and say most of what she says I take with a pinch of salt. |
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Jul 28, 2018 13:00:23 GMT
I find it hard to believe her, even though she may well believe her own statement. I'll go further than that and say most of what she says I take with a pinch of salt. As this thread is in General Chat rather than the Frequent Flyers Club I was trying to be a little less controversial and confrontational than I usually am. |
|
|
|
Post by MartinT on Jul 28, 2018 13:36:51 GMT
Good point, Paul.
For me, I agree that we all have our personal biases. However, my main grief with BBC reporting isn't the political bias (which must in the main be an outcome of the news editor and current management biases). It's the low quality of reporting. If they would just address these issues I'd be a lot happier with them:
- a return to professional journalistic standards
- report and check the facts
- keep opinion separate from news stories
- do not ask the man in the street what they think
- do not dumb down science, technology and the current pronunciation of words like 'nuclear'
- do not assume that someone coming late to a story knows what has happened so far
- stop paying gross amounts of money to worthless 'pundits'
- news is about reportage, not personalities
- absolutely no sensationalising
|
|
|
|
Post by Clive on Jul 28, 2018 14:41:43 GMT
Re Laura K....the thing is the left and right both say she's biased against them which suggests to me that she's not doing as bad a job as some (frequently on other forums) say.
|
|
|
|
Post by Slinger on Jul 28, 2018 15:12:21 GMT
In the spirit fair play, I think many of those complaints could also apply to news organs other than the BBC. Your last point, about sensationalizing the news, can be viewed as a result of the "ratings war" that pervades all branches of broadcasting. It's "bums on seats" and nobody cares if those bums do not have a brain above them. It's all about the numbers, hence the bloody annoying habit of boiling everything down to the lowest common denominator. From my perspective, the vox pop, or "man on the Clapham omnibus" interview serves a purpose, even if that purpose is only to show how much Joe Public doesn't know, perhaps through apathy, ignorance, or poor reporting of the original story. I think that's important to know. Fact-checking has been made difficult. Once upon a time, no major story would go to press without at least two independent and verifiable sources to confirm the veracity of the piece. Now, there are so many conflicting sources it's quite easy to confirm a story with two, three, or more sources and still be wrong. Lazy journos can still claim due diligence and then just blame their many sources. Sorting the facts from the fake news is more difficult than ever with left-wing and right-wing "news" websites and blogs springing up like dodgy mushrooms in Midsummer. By the time something gets to 'us' it might have originated on (as an extreme "for instance") an innocent looking but inwardly white supremacist blog in Bumsquat Alabama, been picked up by The Hill, or The Drudge Report, been passed on to Breitbart, appeared on Fox, got picked up by A.P. and then been spotted by Auntie Beeb. As I said, an extreme example, but just about possible. Auntie Beeb can quote A.P. and Fox as "reliable" sources and voila, we're reading verified complete and utter cobblers. Journalistic opinion is fine, as long as the piece is clearly labeled as an op-ed piece and there is a very visible disclaimer stating that it's the view of whoever has written it rather than straight-forward reporting, or the view of the paper/magazine/whatever that is publishing it. There you go. Plenty of opinions for people to disagree with, and I never mentioned nucular once, Martin. p.s. As you know I always add a link to the source of my 'political' posts, but normally I won't trust a single source even though I only link to one. |
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jul 28, 2018 16:06:41 GMT
I rest my case that we all have our own versions of the truth... Truth is individual calculation, which means because we all have different perspectives there isn't just one single truth |
|
|
|
Post by jandl100 on Jul 28, 2018 16:13:24 GMT
What aspect of truth?
That's the key here.
Tonal and spatial truth, or dynamic and rhythmic truth?
Nice to have it all, of course. But that gets a bit rare.
|
|
|
|
Post by MikeMusic on Jul 28, 2018 17:53:30 GMT
Then there is the truth, but only the selected parts the biased ones wish you to hear.
|
|
